M/S. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

depreciation on computers; and, disallowance of amortization of land in respect of wind power projects. In appeal before the learned CIT(A), assessee was allowed partial relief and, not being satisfied with the order of the CIT(A), assessee is in further appeal in above stated Grounds of appeal. 6. In this background, the rival representatives have been heard. Insofar

IFCI LTD. vs. ADDL. CIT, CIRCLE-11(1),,

In the result ITA number 2205/Del/2005 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

depreciation of ₹ 360,503,983/– on plant and machinery leased various authorities even though the assessee was no more the owner and the lease agreement was in the nature of higher purchase agreement. v. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) has erred in deleting the disallowance

DCIT, CIRCLE-II(I) vs. I.F.C.I. LTD.,,

In the result ITA number 2205/Del/2005 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

depreciation of ₹ 360,503,983/– on plant and machinery leased various authorities even though the assessee was no more the owner and the lease agreement was in the nature of higher purchase agreement. v. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) has erred in deleting the disallowance

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S OXIGEN SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2007-08

section 35D of the Act without verifying the requisite condition that said expenses were incurred before commencement of the business or in connection with the expansion or setting up of new unit by the assessee. The Learned Assessing Officer has also not brought on record how the benefit of expenses on advertisement spills out to future years. The 8 Assessing

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

section 32(1) and 43(6). Further, it v*-. -ot a case where two opimons about the allowabiiitv ^f depreciation claim were possible/JJiereiore, it could not be a case of a bona fide error on the part of the assessee. The excess deduction of depreciation claimed u/s 32(1) is ex facie inadmissible. Merely because the assessee complies with

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JUBILANT OFFSHORE DRILLING PVT LTD

The appeal is dismissed in limine

Depreciation claimed 26,65,819 Total (C) 26,65,819 Operating expenses disallowed (A)+(B)+(C)=(D) 1,69,72,374 ” 8. Noticeably, the respondent assessee had themselves added back the Registrar of Companies’ filing fee of Rs.20,80,000/- and had applied/claimed the said expense under Section 35D

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORP. LTD. (HUDCO), NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantsl. No.

depreciation on estimated stamp duty or registration. Accordingly, the ground of the appeal is dismissed. 8. In ground no. 4, the assessee has challenged the disallowance of financial charges written off of Rs. 3,07,77,527/-, claimed in the computation of income. 15 ITA Nos. 4303/Del/2009; 1166 to1168/Del/2012; 3365 & 3366/Del/2013; 1561 & 1562/Del/2012 Housing & Urban Development Corp. Ltd. According

M/S HOUSING & URBAN DEVLOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantsl. No.

depreciation on estimated stamp duty or registration. Accordingly, the ground of the appeal is dismissed. 8. In ground no. 4, the assessee has challenged the disallowance of financial charges written off of Rs. 3,07,77,527/-, claimed in the computation of income. 15 ITA Nos. 4303/Del/2009; 1166 to1168/Del/2012; 3365 & 3366/Del/2013; 1561 & 1562/Del/2012 Housing & Urban Development Corp. Ltd. According

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD (HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantsl. No.

depreciation on estimated stamp duty or registration. Accordingly, the ground of the appeal is dismissed. 8. In ground no. 4, the assessee has challenged the disallowance of financial charges written off of Rs. 3,07,77,527/-, claimed in the computation of income. 15 ITA Nos. 4303/Del/2009; 1166 to1168/Del/2012; 3365 & 3366/Del/2013; 1561 & 1562/Del/2012 Housing & Urban Development Corp. Ltd. According

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORP. LTD. (HUDCO), NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantsl. No.

depreciation on estimated stamp duty or registration. Accordingly, the ground of the appeal is dismissed. 8. In ground no. 4, the assessee has challenged the disallowance of financial charges written off of Rs. 3,07,77,527/-, claimed in the computation of income. 15 ITA Nos. 4303/Del/2009; 1166 to1168/Del/2012; 3365 & 3366/Del/2013; 1561 & 1562/Del/2012 Housing & Urban Development Corp. Ltd. According

M/S. HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantsl. No.

depreciation on estimated stamp duty or registration. Accordingly, the ground of the appeal is dismissed. 8. In ground no. 4, the assessee has challenged the disallowance of financial charges written off of Rs. 3,07,77,527/-, claimed in the computation of income. 15 ITA Nos. 4303/Del/2009; 1166 to1168/Del/2012; 3365 & 3366/Del/2013; 1561 & 1562/Del/2012 Housing & Urban Development Corp. Ltd. According

M/S. HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantsl. No.

depreciation on estimated stamp duty or registration. Accordingly, the ground of the appeal is dismissed. 8. In ground no. 4, the assessee has challenged the disallowance of financial charges written off of Rs. 3,07,77,527/-, claimed in the computation of income. 15 ITA Nos. 4303/Del/2009; 1166 to1168/Del/2012; 3365 & 3366/Del/2013; 1561 & 1562/Del/2012 Housing & Urban Development Corp. Ltd. According

M/S HOUSING & URBAN DEVLOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantsl. No.

depreciation on estimated stamp duty or registration. Accordingly, the ground of the appeal is dismissed. 8. In ground no. 4, the assessee has challenged the disallowance of financial charges written off of Rs. 3,07,77,527/-, claimed in the computation of income. 15 ITA Nos. 4303/Del/2009; 1166 to1168/Del/2012; 3365 & 3366/Del/2013; 1561 & 1562/Del/2012 Housing & Urban Development Corp. Ltd. According

M/S. HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantsl. No.

depreciation on estimated stamp duty or registration. Accordingly, the ground of the appeal is dismissed. 8. In ground no. 4, the assessee has challenged the disallowance of financial charges written off of Rs. 3,07,77,527/-, claimed in the computation of income. 15 ITA Nos. 4303/Del/2009; 1166 to1168/Del/2012; 3365 & 3366/Del/2013; 1561 & 1562/Del/2012 Housing & Urban Development Corp. Ltd. According

PARAMOUNT COMMUNICATIONS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA No.767/Del/2014 is partly allowed,

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

depreciation on this account also cannot be given to the assessee. He accordingly made the addition of Rs.12,50,03,577/-. 7. The AO further noted that the assessee has opening and closing investments of Rs.27,39,71,001/-. Since, the income from the investment is exempt, therefore, provisions of section 14A are applicable to the facts of the case

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PARAMOUNT COMMUNICATION PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA No.767/Del/2014 is partly allowed,

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

depreciation on this account also cannot be given to the assessee. He accordingly made the addition of Rs.12,50,03,577/-. 7. The AO further noted that the assessee has opening and closing investments of Rs.27,39,71,001/-. Since, the income from the investment is exempt, therefore, provisions of section 14A are applicable to the facts of the case

M/S. PARAMOUNT COMMUNICTIONS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA No.767/Del/2014 is partly allowed,

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

depreciation on this account also cannot be given to the assessee. He accordingly made the addition of Rs.12,50,03,577/-. 7. The AO further noted that the assessee has opening and closing investments of Rs.27,39,71,001/-. Since, the income from the investment is exempt, therefore, provisions of section 14A are applicable to the facts of the case

DCIT CIRCLE 12 (1) vs. G.E. CAPITAL SERVICES INDIA,

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are partly allowed for

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.L.P.Sahu

35D. Therefore, unless statutory provision is there to defer the revenue expenditure over a period, the entire amount is to be allowed in the year in which it is incurred for running the business as per section 37 of the Income Tax Act. Ld. CIT(A) has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case